IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN CHEVRON CORPORATION AND TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, -and- Claimants, THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, Respondent. TRACK 2 SUPPLEMENTAL COUNTER-MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR Dr. Diego García Carrión Procurador General del Estado Dr. Blanca Gómez de la Torre Director de Patrocinio Internacional Procuraduría General del Estado República del Ecuador Av. Amazonas N39-123 y José Arízaga Quito, Ecuador bgomez@pge.gob.ec Fax: +593-2-2543-589 Eric W. Bloom Ricardo E. Ugarte Tomás Leonard WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1700 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-3817 ebloom@winston.com rugarte@winston.com tleonard@winston.com Fax: +1 202-282-5100 November 7, 2014
2. The First Instance Court s Decision To Accept Supplemental Expert Reports Was Proper And Lawful In All Respects... 82 3. The First Instance Court Properly Terminated The Judicial Inspections Phase And Appointed Mr. Cabrera... 85 4. Mr. Cabrera Is Not A State Actor, And His Actions Therefore Cannot Be Imputed To Ecuador s Judiciary... 86 5. Claimants Cannot Rely On Judge Kaplan s Findings Regarding The Plaintiffs Experts To Impugn The First Instance Court... 88 III. Judge Zambrano s Alleged Solicitation Of Bribes From The Parties In The Lago Agrio Case Does Not Violate International Law...89 A. Claimants Have Neither Alleged Nor Proved That Judge Zambrano Solicited A Bribe To Further The Interests Of The State... 90 B. Acts Perpetrated By A State Actor To Further His Own Private Interests And Without Apparent Authority Are Not Attributable To The State... 91 C. Claimants Have Failed To Prove Judge Zambrano s Alleged Misconduct Is Attributable To The Republic... 94 IV. Claimants Denial Of Justice Claim Must Fail...98 A. The Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction Over Claimants Denial Of Justice Claim... 100 B. Claimants Failure To Exhaust Local Remedies Bars Their Claims Predicated Upon Allegations Of Fraud And Corruption In The Judgment... 102 1. Ecuador s CPA Provides An Available Remedy to Claimants Allegations of Fraud and Corruption... 103 2. The CPA Is The Proper Remedy To Address Claimants Allegations of Fraud and Corruption... 105 a. Ultima Ratio... 107 b. The CPA Is Not Limited To Fraudulent Practices Related To Real Estate Transactions... 109 3. There Is No Merit To Claimants Assertion That A CPA Action Would Be Futile... 110 a. Enforceability Of The Lago Agrio Judgment Is No Exception To The Requirement Of Exhaustion... 113 ii
4. Claimants Are Estopped From Asserting A Claim On The Basis Of Allegations Of Fraud Because They Failed To Raise Those Claims At The First Instance Level... 116 5. Claimants Have Failed To Meet The High Evidentiary Burden Required To Establish A Denial Of Justice... 119 C. Claimants Denial Of Justice Claim Based On Alleged Judicial Error Fails As A Matter Of International And Municipal Law... 120 1. Because Claimants Action Before The Constitutional Court is Ongoing, Their Claims Predicated Upon Alleged Legal Error In The Lago Agrio Judgment Are Premature... 120 2. National Judiciaries Are Entitled to A Presumption of Regularity... 122 3. The Threshold Of Qualifying Conduct Is High... 125 4. Claimants Have Failed To Show That The Lago Agrio Court s Decision Is Malicious Or Offends A Sense Of Judicial Propriety... 126 a. Claimants Improperly Focus Their Claims On The Proceedings At The First Instance Level... 126 b. The Cassation Decision Conclusively Disproves Any Allegation Of Due Process Violations In The Lago Agrio Proceedings... 128 V. Claimants Treaty Claims Are Meritless...129 A. Claimants Cannot Revive Their Failed Denial Of Justice Claim By Re- Labeling It As A Treaty Violation... 130 B. Claimants Treaty Claims Fail For Additional Reasons... 136 1. Ecuador Has Afforded Claimants Effective Means... 136 2. Ecuador Has Afforded Claimants Fair And Equitable Treatment... 141 3. Ecuador Afforded Claimants Full Protection And Security... 145 4. Ecuador Did Not Act In An Arbitrary Or Discriminatory Manner With Respect To Claimants Alleged Investments... 148 VI. Claimants Have Failed To Establish That The Nullification Remedy They Seek Is Available Or Appropriate In The Circumstances Of This Case...150 A. Claimants Request For Nullification Is Not Supported By International Law... 153 iii
B. Claimants National Court Authority Does Not Support The Remedy Of Nullification... 160 C. Claimants Attempt To Distinguish The Commercial Cases Award Is Unpersuasive... 161 D. Nullification Of The Lago Agrio Judgment Would Unjustly Enrich Claimants In Contravention Of International Law... 163 VII. Claimants Past Practices And Polices Caused And Continue To Cause Significant Risk Of Harm To Human Health And Environmental Damage...167 A. Chevron s Pollution Of The Oriente Is Central To This Case: No Resolution Can Be Had Without First Resolving Chevron s Environmental Liabilities... 169 B. Claimants Reliance On The RAP In Track 2 Is Entirely Misplaced... 170 C. Claimants Have Failed To Refute The Environmental Case Against Them... 171 D. LBG s Supplemental Site Investigation Further Confirms That Widespread TexPet Contamination Is Present In The Former Concession Area... 175 1. Site Investigations Conducted By LBG In 2014 At Eight Additional Former TexPet Sites Confirm That Oriente Residents Are Still Exposed To TexPet-Caused Contamination... 175 a. AG-06: TexPet-Only Pits Seep Oil Downhill Into A Nearby Wetland... 177 b. LA-16: Crude Oil Migration From TexPet Pits Has Caused Significant Soil And Groundwater Contamination... 179 c. SSF-13: Supposedly Closed Pit Leaks Contamination To Stream... 180 d. SSF-34: Hidden TexPet Pit Exceeds All Contamination Thresholds... 182 e. AG-04: Liquid Crude From TexPet Operations Is Present Today... 183 f. LA-35: Contamination From TexPet Pit Migrates Via Groundwater And TexPet-Installed Gooseneck Pipe... 183 g. SSF-43: Groundwater Has Been Impacted By TexPet Operations... 184 iv
h. SSF-55: Sediments Show Impacts of Contamination... 185 2. Supplemental Testing At Two Sites Previously Investigated By LBG s Further Confirms The Presence Of TexPet Contamination... 185 3. TexPet s Hidden Pits And Practices Jeopardize Future Generations... 186 E. The Risk Of Health Impacts To Oriente Residents Living Near Former TexPet Facilities Requires Remediation, Health Monitoring, And Treatment... 187 1. The Republic s Health Experts Have Demonstrated A Substantial Risk To Human Health That Shows The Judgment To Be Reasonable... 188 a. Claimants Experts Epidemiological Studies Underestimate Risk... 189 b. Epidemiological Studies Of Populations Exposed To Oil Establish Health Risks, Including Cancer... 191 c. The Toxicological Data Indicate That TexPet s Contamination Has Caused Present And Future Risk Of Adverse Health Effects... 193 2. Residents Of The Oriente Have Been And Will Continue To Be Exposed To TexPet Contamination In Multiple Ways... 194 a. Oriente Residents Are Exposed Through Bathing And Swimming... 197 b. Oriente Residents Are Exposed To Contamination Through Washing Their Clothes... 200 c. Oriente Residents Are Exposed Through Drinking Contaminated Water And Eating Food Cooked With It... 201 d. Oriente Residents Are Exposed To Contaminated Dust And Dirt... 203 e. Oriente Residents Are Exposed To Contamination Through Their Livestock And Fishing... 203 f. Oriente Residents Are Exposed To Contamination Through Farming... 205 F. The Lago Agrio Judgment Is Reasonable... 205 v
1. Chevron Is Jointly And Severally Liable Under Ecuadorian Law For All Pollution Present At Its Well Sites... 205 a. Ecuadorian Law Provides Joint And Several Liability For Parties Who Have Simultaneously Or Successively Contributed To Environmental Harm At The Same Sites... 207 b. Ecuadorian Principles Of Joint And Several Liability Mirror U.S., English, And Civil Legal Systems... 209 2. Claimants Comparison Of PetroAmazonas Costs For Pit Remediation Is An Apples-To-Oranges Comparison To The Court- Ordered Remediation... 211 3. Claimants Refusal To Respond To The Evidence Proving The Reasonableness Of The Judgment s Damages Does Not Make Those Damages Unreasonable... 213 a. Claimants Silence Concedes That The Damages For Soil Remediation Are Supported By The Record And Are Reasonable... 213 b. Claimants Silence Concedes That The Damages For Groundwater Contamination Are Supported By The Record And Are Reasonable... 216 c. Claimants Silence Concedes That The Damages For Potable Water Are Supported In The Record And Are Reasonable... 217 d. Claimants Silence Concedes That The Damages For A Healthcare System Are Supported In The Record And Are Reasonable... 218 e. Claimants Silence Concedes That The Damages For Ecosystem Restoration Are Supported In The Record And Are Reasonable... 219 f. Claimants Silence Concedes That The Damages For A Health Plan To Address Cancer Are Reasonable And Supported By The Record... 220 4. The Court Properly Found Claimants Liable Notwithstanding Claimants Efforts To Minimize And Hide The Contamination... 220 G. The Ecuadorian Courts Properly Determined That There Was Ample Evidence That Chevron Contaminated The Oriente... 221 vi
1. Claimants Reliance On Judge Kaplan s RICO Decision Does Not Excuse Their Failure To Address The Record Evidence of Contamination Here... 221 2. Claimants Cannot Manipulate The Evidence Submitted During The Judicial Inspections To Support Their Claims... 222 a. Dr. Calmbacher Found Pollution At The Sites He Inspected... 223 b. Mr. Russell s Contemporaneous Emails Evidence Significant Contamination And Complete Confidence In His Cost Estimates... 225 c. There Was Substantial Pollution At Sacha 53 Regardless Of The Report Filed By The Court-Appointed Settling Experts... 227 d. The Global Assessment Or Damages Phase Does Not Advance Claimants Allegations Of Environmental Fraud... 228 VIII. Conclusion And Relief Requested...230 vii
114. In the end, the evidence in this case not the testimony from a different case with different parties is what matters. This Tribunal has the benefit of substantial, contemporaneous evidence not before the RICO court. Claimants choose to ignore this evidence. The Tribunal does not have that prerogative. 6. Claimants Have No Probative Documentary Evidence Connecting Judge Zambrano To Any Ghostwriting Scheme 115. While ignoring the contemporaneous documentary evidence that affirmatively refutes their ghostwriting claims, Claimants offer a scattershot of their own documentary evidence supposedly probative of the alleged scheme. It is not, for at least two reasons. First, Claimants allegations are for the most part supported by no evidence other than Guerra s testimony. Second, the documentary evidence cited by Claimants, when examined, repeatedly shows itself to be far less than what Claimants assert. a. Claimants Offer No Evidence At All In Support Of Many Of Guerra s Allegations 116. Judge Zambrano assumed his role as presiding judge over the Lago Agrio Litigation for the second time on October 10, 2010 as a direct result of Claimants efforts to put him there. 188 He issued the Judgment four months later, on February 14, 2011. Claimants have failed to produce a single piece of documentary evidence supporting Mr. Guerra s assertion that Judge Zambrano agreed to allow the Plaintiffs to draft the Judgment. REDACTED 188 Judge Zambrano s first tenure as presiding judge of the Lago Agrio case was from October 2009 to February 2010. R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 82; C-2135, RICO Opinion at 22. In August 2010, Judge Ordonez was the presiding judge. Chevron sought to recuse him, knowing that he would be replaced by Judge Zambrano. See R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 82; C-1616a, Guerra Decl. (Nov. 17, 2012) 21, filed in RICO. 189 See RE-24, Racich Expert Rpt. (Nov. 7, 2014) 22. 53
117. Nor have Claimants offered any documentary evidence showing that Judge Zambrano ever received one dime from the Plaintiffs counsel in connection with the Judgment or for any other reason or that he agreed to accept money at some time in the future. 118. While Mr. Guerra professes to have first-hand knowledge that the Plaintiffs attorneys drafted the Judgment and paid Judge Zambrano for the opportunity to do so, he has offered no corroborating documentary evidence. And while Mr. Guerra maintains that he edited the draft Judgment, he, of course, has no documentary evidence to support that claim, either. 190 At every turn, Claimants must rely on only Mr. Guerra s testimony, because they lack any other supporting evidence. 119. There is absolutely no evidence that the Plaintiffs ever paid Judge Zambrano. Claimants have similarly failed to produce any evidence of any payments from anyone to Mr. Guerra during the relevant time frame from or after the date on which Chevron moved to recuse Judge Ordóñez, which first triggered the possibility that Judge Zambrano might be tasked with drafting the decision. Likewise, the TAME shipping records reveal not a single shipment from Mr. Guerra to Judge Zambrano during either of Judge Zambrano s tenures. 191 It is precisely the lack of evidence of wrongdoing that prompted Claimants to pay ungodly sums of money to Mr. Guerra. Respondent has previously highlighted Mr. Guerra s lack of credibility as a witness, 192 and further addresses his testimony below. 190 RICO. 191 R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 120-23; R-906, Guerra Dep. Tr. (May 2, 2013) at 165-67, filed in One of the shipments was on February 11, 2011 three days before Judge Zambrano issued the final Judgment. Mr. Guerra s testimony rules that shipment out as a transmittal of the Judgment itself. Mr. Guerra testified unequivocally that the last time he saw a draft of the final Judgment was two weeks before the Judgment was issued, when he allegedly edited it on Pablo Fajardo s computer. C-1616a, Guerra Decl. (Nov. 17, 2012) 25-27, filed in RICO. Therefore, Mr. Guerra s spreadsheet of shipments does not contain a single record of a shipment to Judge Zambrano during the latter s time as the Judge presiding over the Lago Agrio Litigation. 192 Respondent s Track 2 Rejoinder 235 et seq. 54
b. The Documentary Evidence Claimants Do Offer Is Consistent With Judge Zambrano s Testimony 120. Judge Zambrano candidly explained in his deposition in the New York RICO action that Mr. Guerra occasionally helped him prepare orders in some of his other cases and that Mr. Guerra would occasionally ship those orders to Judge Zambrano via TAME. 193 None of that is in controversy. Judge Zambrano further testified that Mr. Guerra never drafted orders in the Lago Agrio Litigation. 194 Judge Zambrano s reliance on Mr. Guerra to review his orders in other cases before their issuance does not implicate him in any bribery scheme in the Lago Agrio Litigation. 195 121. The only documentary evidence Claimants have provided to support Mr. Guerra s testimony either postdates the issuance of the Judgment or relates to Judge Zambrano s first term as presiding judge over the Lago Agrio Litigation. And much of that evidence contradicts Mr. Guerra s testimony and is, in fact, consistent with Judge Zambrano s testimony. 122. First, the TAME shipping records produced by Mr. Guerra as supportive of his testimony that he regularly drafted orders in the Lago Agrio case and shipped them to Judge Zambrano prove no such claim. There is not a single shipment to Judge Zambrano during either of his tenures as presiding judge over the Lago Agrio Litigation, thus making it impossible that Mr. Guerra mailed Judge Zambrano draft orders in the Lago Agrio Litigation. 196 If the TAME records have any utility at all, it is that the timing of the shipments supports Judge Zambrano s 193 194 C-1980, RICO Trial Tr. at 1630:22-1631:3, 1643:18-21. For example, Chevron filed thirty-nine separate motions on October 14, 2010 challenging one particular order of the Court. See C-644, Court Order, Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Oct. 19, 2010). 195 Zambrano asked Guerra to help him with his other cases precisely so that Zambrano would have more time to address the many motions submitted by the parties in the Lago Agrio Litigation. 196 Of course, the TAME records do not illuminate the contents of any shipment at all, further cementing their uselessness as corroborative evidence. 55
Judge Zambrano: Mr. Guerra would write the date in the draft order as abril... del 2011 or diciembre... del 2011 (with ellipses in place of a day). By contrast, Judge Zambrano always included a date in his draft orders, even if he later updated it. The nine draft orders from the Lago Agrio case in Mr. Guerra s possession are all consistent with Judge Zambrano s practice, not Mr. Guerra s. All nine of the draft orders include the full date. 125. REDACTED 126. Finally, a review of the nine Orders actually shows that Judge Zambrano granted more than half of Chevron s motions whereas he denied more than half of the Plaintiffs motions. 204 There is no evidence of bias. 127. Third, while Mr. Guerra asserts that Judge Zambrano paid him US$ 1,000 monthly for three and a half years to help draft orders in many of his cases, Mr. Guerra s evidence contradicts this claim. The only evidence of any money given to Mr. Guerra from Judge Zambrano is a deposit slip from June 24, 2011 (for US$ 300) and a handwritten note written on an unknown date in Mr. Guerra s daily planner on the October 14, 2011 page (for US$ 500) both in amounts materially at variance with Mr. Guerra s testimony and both made 203 204 RE-24, Racich Expert Rpt. (Nov. 7, 2014) 63-64. C-230, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Oct. 21, 2009); R-1208, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Nov. 23, 2009); C-1809, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Nov. 30, 2009); C-1812, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Dec. 07, 2009); C-1810, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Dec. 14, 2009); R-1209, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Jan. 5, 2010); R-1210, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Jan. 19, 2010); R-1211, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Feb. 2, 2010); C-1816, Order by the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos (Feb. 18, 2010). 57
months after the issuance of the Judgment. 205 Judge Zambrano explained that he lent Mr. Guerra money because Mr. Guerra had asked him for a loan, 206 testimony perfectly consistent with Mr. Guerra s admitted financial hardship before becoming a ward of Claimants. 207 Indeed, Mr. Guerra s bank statement confirms that prior to the loan from Judge Zambrano, he had only US$ 146 in his account. 208 For their part, Claimants have provided no other evidence to corroborate Mr. Guerra s claim that Judge Zambrano paid him any monies at any time. 128. Claimants deride the Republic s efforts to discredit Mr. Guerra s obviously circumstantial documentary evidence as based on supposition. But it is Claimants paucity of evidence and their penchant for purchasing witnesses that suggest that Claimants have relied on their overwhelming resources to build their case. 129. As the Tribunal will recall, Claimants previously relied on the purchased testimony of Diego Borja in an effort to implicate Judge Núñez in an alleged bribery scandal. As has been confirmed by numerous independent sources, 209 there was never any evidence to suggest that Judge Núñez was aware of or complicit in a bribery scheme. Mr. Borja himself confessed: [T]here was no bribe. I mean... there was never a bribe. 210 Claimants nonetheless 205 Claimants allege that an additional deposit slip from June 24, 2011 and a handwritten note in Guerra s diary of a deposit on February 24, 2012 indicate payments from Judge Zambrano. But only Guerra s say-so links either deposit to Judge Zambrano. In any event, both payments are irrelevant because they postdate the issuance of the Lago Agrio Judgment. Claimants Track 2 Reply n.120, 59; see Adam N. Torres Expert Rpt. (May 24, 2013) at 25. 206 207 208 209 C-1980, Zambrano RICO Trial Testimony at 1814:4-11. R-906, Guerra Dep. Tr. (May 2, 2013) at 150-52. R-1212, Guerra s Bank Statement (July 2011). R-1202, Barrett at 168-171; R-1200, ROLLING STONE at 8-9; R-197, Transcript of Proceedings (Nov. 10, 2010), In re Application of the Republic of Ecuador re Diego Borja, No. C 10-00112 (N.D. Cal.) at 38:19-39:5; R- 315, Under Pressure Ecuadorean Judge Steps Aside in Suit Against Chevron, NEW YORK TIMES (Sept. 5, 2009) at 1; R-316, Chevron s Legal Fireworks, LOS ANGELES TIMES (Sept. 5, 2009) at 2; R-317, Chevron Judge Says Tapes Don t Reveal Verdict, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (Sept. 2, 2009) at 1; R-576, Chevron Steps Up Ecuador Legal Fight, FINANCIAL TIMES at 2 (Sept. 1, 2009). 210 R-582, Transcript of Borja/Escobar Conversation on Oct. 1, 2009 (23.59.31) at 11. 58
relocated Mr. Borja to the United States and paid him handsomely to act as their mouthpiece, making elaborate allegations of corruption that proved to be false. As the facts unfold regarding Judge Zambrano and Mr. Guerra, a similar scenario appears to be playing out. Here, there is no evidence that Judge Zambrano the allegedly guilty party was ever paid one dime as part of a bribery scheme, was aware of any such bribery scheme, or ever issued even one order in the Lago Agrio Case contrary to Ecuadorian law or in response to undue influence of a third party. Rather, the only evidence of wrongdoing and the only source of Claimants elaborate allegations is yet again the testimony of an inherently unreliable witness whom Chevron has carefully cultivated through months of coaching by a team of lawyers and generously supported with financial rewards. 7. Mr. Guerra s Testimony Is Not Believable 130. Far from serving as the panacea that Claimants desire it to be, Mr. Guerra s testimony has proven to be anything but clear and consistent. His story keeps changing; he continues to massage his testimony blaming his faulty memory at every turn in a transparent effort to conform his testimony to the evidence. 131. Before Mr. Guerra secured his pecuniary and non-pecuniary riches from Chevron, he met with a Chevron attorney and Chevron investigator in Quito for six days over the course of three months (May to July 2012). At these meetings, Mr. Guerra began to negotiate for himself and his family. For sale were a hodge-podge of documents and, of course, his testimony. In exchange, he sought and has obtained a financial windfall. 132. For Mr. Guerra these meetings also served as a test run: He began identifying elements of his narrative that he would maintain, those that he would later bolster, or, in some instances, abandon. During the meetings, Chevron purchased all the documentary evidence that 59
Mr. Guerra professed to have. And where the evidence fell short, Mr. Guerra swapped in his own testimony. 133. Ostensibly recognizing the deficiencies in Mr. Guerra s story, in November 2012, Chevron began working with Mr. Guerra to solidify his testimony in behind-the-scenes meetings for which, unlike the early investigator meetings, no transcript is available. Over the next several months, Mr. Guerra admits that he had no fewer than fifty-three meetings with Chevron s attorneys. 211 That is, Mr. Guerra met with Chevron s attorneys three to four days a week for approximately three months between four and six hours a day. 212 134. Claimants maintain that all of this is irrelevant because, per Chevron s agreement with Mr. Guerra, Chevron has no control over, and places no limits on the content of, Mr. Guerra s testimony. 213 The facts belie this assertion. Mr. Guerra has been for the last two years, and will be for the foreseeable future, entirely dependent on his patron s largesse. But there is no rational connection between the evidence provided and the payments made to Mr. Guerra. Mr. Guerra, who admitted that he deliberately lied to Chevron to improve his negotiating position, 214 conceded that this evidence was not worth anything to [him] from [his] own viewpoint so he considered the payments a gift. 215 And where the sums of money and financial benefits are in the millions of dollars and where that largesse is accompanied by fifty- 211 212 213 214 R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 13:21-22. C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 1049-50. R-892, Cooperation Agreement, art. II.B.3; Claimants Letter to Tribunal (Jan 15, 2014) at 5. R-906, Guerra Dep. Tr. (May 2, 2013) at 52:9-11; 52:23-53:2, filed in RICO ( In my intent to improve my situation... in negotiations with Chevron.... I overstated regarding the income or the money that I was receiving at the time. ); id. at 150:4-14; 150:19-20 ( Q: [Y]ou represented to the Chevron representatives that you had been offered $300,000 by the plaintiffs in the Lago Agrio litigation, correct? A: My intent was to improve my position, the face of a good future negotiation for Mr. Zambrano and myself, so that to that end I said some things or exaggerated some things.... There was an exaggeration made to Chevron s representatives. ); id. at 72:5-73:19; 74:17-24. 215 R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 122:16-23. 60
three meetings to discuss his testimony, the resulting testimony ceases to have any indicia of reliability. 216 a. The Plaintiffs Payments For Orders 135. Today, Mr. Guerra alleges that the Plaintiffs bribery scheme began as early as 2009 when, during Judge Zambrano s first term on the case, the Plaintiffs paid Mr. Guerra US$ 1,000/month to draft orders in the Plaintiffs favor on behalf of Judge Zambrano. But when Mr. Guerra first spoke to Chevron s investigators in May to June 2012, he never mentioned, much less hinted at, such an arrangement. In fact, much of what Mr. Guerra said at those meetings contradicts his future accounts. Mr. Guerra does not reveal his pact with the Plaintiffs until his first declaration in November 2012, after months of preparation by Chevron s legal team. 136. During the initial meetings held in Quito with Chevron s investigators, Mr. Guerra casually mentioned that REDACTED 216 217 218 219 Respondent s Letter to the Tribunal (Jan. 3, 2014); Respondent s Track 2 Rejoinder IV.E. R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 47. Id. at 47. Id. at 48. 61
REDACTED. 247 Guerra subsequently changed his testimony and now contends that the two in fact very regularly discussed the parties motions, key procedural issues, and the court orders in fact everything. 248 b. The Weekend Mr. Guerra Allegedly Edited the Judgment 144. Mr. Guerra has told a number of mutually exclusive stories relating to the weekend during which he allegedly edited the draft judgment that he claims had been written by the Plaintiffs. His initial account can be summarized as follows: Mr. Guerra met Judge Zambrano at the Quito airport REDACTED 249 The meeting took place on the evening of Friday, January 28, 2011 at around 6, 6:30 in the evening. 250 Judge Zambrano gave Mr. Guerra the draft judgment on a USB flash drive. 251 At this meeting, Judge Zambrano explicitly told Mr. Guerra that the Plaintiffs wrote the 252 draft judgment and REDACTED Mr. Guerra worked on the draft judgment at his home in Quito. 253 Mr. Guerra could not possibly have worked from Judge Zambrano s home in Lago Agrio because of safety concerns. 254 247 248 249 R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 60-61 ) R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 78-79. R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 88-89; R-1214, Guerra Recorded Conversation (May 6, 2012) at 7 ( The way we would always do things. ). See also R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 143; C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 1097-1115. 250 R-1214, Guerra Recorded Conversation (May 6, 2012) at 13; id. at 6; R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 88. See also C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 1097-1115. 251 R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 88-90, 99; R-1214, Guerra Recorded Conversation (May 6, 2012) at 5 ( That he gave me, gave it to me in a flash drive. ). See also R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 143; R-906, Guerra Dep. Tr. (May 2, 2013) at 72, filed in RICO; C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 1097-1115. 252 R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 98-99. See also R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 143; C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 1008-11. 253 C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 967-68, 1105-15. 66 REDACTED
145. Mr. Guerra has since recanted in respect to each and every one of these sixteen factual representations. 146. After Mr. Guerra was told by Chevron s representatives that they were not finding the draft judgment, Mr. Guerra contends he began an effort to remember. 265 Suddenly, Guerra s memory improved regarding those facts, and he realized that his weekend at home in Quito working on the Judgment had actually been spent in Lago Agrio meeting with Mr. Fajardo and regularly appearing in public with Judge Zambrano. 266 147. Guerra trips over himself as he backpedals. In recalling these facts initially, I assumed I had received the document on a flash drive given to me by Mr. Zambrano in the Quito airport, as he usually did with the projects I helped him with. 267 At another time, Guerra states that his exchanges of documents and flash drives with Judge Zambrano were REDACTED the airport. 268 148. But his explanation is contradicted by his RICO trial testimony wherein he testified that as far as me issuing the court orders related to the Chevron case during Judge at Zambrano's second term, I would travel to the city of Lago Agrio. 269 This was because in his opinion, Chevron s attorneys or Chevron representatives... have been very attentive as far as 265 266 267 268 269 R-906, Guerra Dep. Tr. (May 2, 2013) at 165, filed in RICO. C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 1133. C-1616a, Guerra Decl. (Nov. 17, 2012) 25, filed in RICO (emphasis added). R-1213, Guerra Recorded Conversation (June 25, 2012) at 89. C-1978, Guerra RICO Trial Testimony at 999-1002. See also C-2358, Guerra Witness Statement (Oct. 9, 2013) 46, filed in RICO ( When I traveled to Lago Agrio to work on the Chevron rulings for Mr. Zambrano, I would work on a laptop, which Mr. Fajardo had previously provided to me. ); R-906, Guerra Dep. Tr. (May 2, 2013) at 165, filed in RICO ( That s when I began an effort to remember until I determined that actually the draft judgment, the project, I worked on it in Lago Agrio, among other documents that I have generated over there. ). R- 907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 102-105 ( Q. Why did Mr. Zambrano set up a deal directly with the plaintiffs after he had asked you to approach the plaintiffs? A. I don't know why he did it, but he told me that he reached that agreement. Q. When did he tell you that he had reached that agreement? A. At the time that he told me that I should go to Lago Agrio to work on the orders. Q. When was that? A. At the beginning of the second term that Judge Zambrano was the judge on the case. ). 68
and Judge Zambrano a laptop to use, that Mr. Guerra used that laptop to edit the pinnacle of the bribery scheme the Judgment and that Mr. Guerra visited an internet café to retrieve a memory aid that Mr. Fajardo emailed him. 151. Later, Mr. Guerra changed his story regarding the memory aid again. After insisting for nearly a year and a half that Mr. Fajardo emailed the memory aid to him, Mr. Guerra needed an explanation for the fact that neither he nor Chevron ever located the corresponding email. In another about-face, and alleged improvement of his memory, Mr. Guerra now claims that Mr. Fajardo personally handed him the memory aid. 286 152. Setting aside the inconsistencies, Mr. Guerra s story is still rife with hard-tobelieve details. Mr. Guerra asserts that by the time Judge Zambrano issued the Judgment, Judge Zambrano was being careful ostensibly to keep the bribery scheme under wraps. Zambrano was allegedly so concerned that Mr. Guerra was forbidden to even show up [in Lago Agrio] to assist with post-judgment orders. But Mr. Guerra simultaneously contends that on the eve of the Judgment, he spent an entire weekend in Judge Zambrano s Lago Agrio apartment, even being seen in public taking meals with the Judge. More remarkable, these public appearances came after Mr. Guerra allegedly approached Chevron not once but twice for bribes and even indicated he would approach the Plaintiffs, 287 thereby putting Chevron on notice of the alleged corruption. 153. Mr. Guerra s narrative continues on this rollercoaster when he purports to describe his role, financially and substantively, in the alleged scheme. First, Mr. Guerra claimed that he had a deal directly with the Plaintiffs, who agreed to pay him US$ 300,000. After telling 286 287 Id. at 1011-13. C-1616a, Guerra Decl. (Nov. 17, 2012) 12, filed in RICO; R-1218, Callejas Aff. (Dec. 7, 2012) 7-8; R- 1219, Racines Aff. (Nov. 29, 2012) 4; R-907, Guerra Dep. Tr. (Nov. 5, 2013) at 94:25-95:9, 114:24-115:15. 72